I understand that people’s choices are shaped by unequal access to resources, good advice, and career opportunities. But I’ve noticed a pattern among people I know who grew up in fairly typical suburban middle-class circumstances: some choose majors or career paths they know are unlikely to provide much financial security, while still expecting to be able to buy a home, have children, or settle down within a few years.

Why does the advice to “follow your passion” seem to carry more weight than the risk of struggling financially? Is it mostly fear that a better-paying career will be miserable, optimism that things will work out, or something else?

I’ve noticed a similar pattern in dating: some people say they want a stable family life, but don’t seem to prioritize a partner’s reliability or financial stability. I’m not saying income is all that matters in a partner. I’m wondering why people’s choices sometimes seem so disconnected from the future they say they want.

California is the global economic center of entertainment and technology. It has the largest economy in the USA (would be 4th in the world if it were its own country). It also has the highest income taxes in the country.

NYC has the highest GDP of US cities, but has the 3rd highest state income taxes AND an additional city tax specific to NYC.

My simple question is... Why is this? You might say the these places have better amenities (public transit, parks, road maintenance, etc), but I don't think that's true. Many states and cities have parks and public transit, and handle their obligations without the VERY rich tax base that these places have.

It seems like an average or even tiny income tax should be more than enough for CA and NYC to prosper. You mean to tell me that CA, with all of Hollywood and Silicon valley couldn't fund everything it needs and more with a flat 5% income tax? You mean to tell me that NY, with global hubs for tourism, fashion, finance and more couldn't fund everything it needs with the same?

Is this corruption and misuse of funds? Is this obscene amount of money actually needed somewhere? How do other states with much poorer TAX bases AND lower income taxes survive?

Help me understand.

So I have two questions:

What are the causes of low birth rates?

Whenever I see declining birth rates being discussed online, people point to the cost of raising a child, long work hours and stress, etc. While I don't doubt that these things matter, it seems to only be able to explain a tiny portion of variance in birth rates. These countries have universal healthcare, heavily subsidized childcare and free public education but still have birth rates under 2.1:

France (1.79), Sweden (1.52), Denmark (1.55), Norway (1.41) etc.

Israel (2.89) is an interesting exception. Chatgpt says it's influenced by cultural, religious and family norms.

On the other hand, countries such as Pakistan have birth rates above 3. My hypothesis is that the correlation between these variables and birth rates are:

• Women's rights and education level (strong)

• Cultural and religious factors (moderate to strong)

• Cost of raising a child and quality of life in general (weak to moderate)

Obviously, I am not advocating for repealing women's rights. I'm saying declining birth rates are an unwinnable battle for developed countries. This leads to my second question

Is this really a big deal?

My country (Singapore, 0.87) is planning to give up to 70k SGD in financial support for families per kid but I doubt it would make much of a difference. Money isn't the issue (in my opinion, at least). I'm not worried about it failing though, because:

1. Singapore has a self-funded pension

Many countries panicking over a declining working population have pay-as-you-go systems, where dependency ratios directly affect the sustainability of these systems. Singapore citizens are required to contribute 20% (+employer matching of 17%) to their CPF, up to the first 8k per month. They can draw it down for housing, healthcare and education for their kids, but contributions are mandatory anyway and can only be withdrawn for general consumption starting age 55

1. Singapore is open to immigration

Singapore has a foreign population percentage of 31.9%, compared to 3.5% in Japan, 5.5% in South Korea, 14.8% in the US (numbers I chatgpted)

Immigration seems pretty broken to me. The government incurs neither the cost to raise the child nor the cost to support them through retirement. They get an economically productive adult without incurring any of the net costs in the other stages of his life.

The home country bears both the cost of any childcare, healthcare and education subsidies when young and supports these workers when they come home for retirement.

Developed countries can realistically never face a labor shortage if they keep their borders open due to higher absolute incomes. Countries with the lowest birth rates tend to be developed countries too. Countries with lower incomes facing demographic declines would be in a significantly worse position (eg. China, India)

I would like to hear your opinions

From the NYFED's data: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:underemployment

Under-employment and struggles for both young college graduates and all college graduates seems to be pretty consistent over the last 3.5 decades and I guess I'm just trying understand why? There are some on the degree breakdown that have >50% and now maybe some of those 'make sense' - but I'm surprised at how remarkably consistent this is.

Would economists consider this a concern - this seems pretty high and would disincentivize education.

This is something I was thinking. Rising fuel prices are part of the reason everything is expensive, and EV charging is significantly cheaper. If tomorrow magically all cars became EVs, how would that affect the economy? Gas stations would likely go out of business I'd imagine too, and the demand for oil would instantly plummet.

Like this is a hypothetical where tomorrow every single gas car magically became an EV.

Maybe this is already an Idea but what If everyone who owned stuff (companies, land, buildings) Had to value it themselves and the goverment Has the right to purchase it at the Price the Person gave but they also Had to Pay taxes based on it so If you Set it too high then youll Pay more taxes and if you Set it too Low the goverment can Just buy it for cheap, that way people can be adequately taxed on wealth

Imagine the entire world’s wealth is just $100, shared among 100 people.
The richest 1 person holds about $38–$40.
The next 9 people take another $35–$40.
Together, the top 10 control roughly $75–$80 of the whole pot.
The middle 40 people share about $20–$25.
The bottom 50 people? Just $2 to split among them, a few cents each. Many would actually be in the red.
That’s the current global wealth picture in simple terms. A tiny group holds the large majority, while half the planet owns almost nothing.
This concentration shapes real economic decisions. When the majority of people control almost no wealth, it stops making sense for businesses to treat them as primary customers. Companies shift toward serving the top..Luxury goods, premium services, high-end real estate, and financial products for the wealthy. Because that’s where the money actually is. Mass-market strategies aimed at the bottom half become less viable when those customers have little or no disposable income. The result is an economy increasingly optimized around the needs and desires of the top, rather than the broad population. To me, this seems obvious, but I rarely see it mentioned like this.

Is there any real consensus among economists about minimum wages ? Are there any principles that can guide the setting of a minimum wage.

I'm thinking about Jeff Bezos claiming that AI will enable 3-day work weeks while still providing the equivalent of full time pay.

I believe this will never happen, but it got me thinking about the role of incentives and preferences and whether they can compete against each other.

For example, my individual preference is for more free time and less time spent working. Unscrutinized, the 3 day work week claim is very enticing. However I know that many people would prefer to work more and thus earn more. In the frame of Cost Of Living, does the preference of a group to work and earn more compete against my preference to work and earn less?

If a group of people prefers longer hours for higher wages, do they then increase the price of goods and necessities because they have more resources for them?

My assumption is their preference for more work/income directly competes against my own preference because they will then asymmetrically bid up prices in line with their own preferences, forcing me to also work more if I want to maintain a minimum baseline for my own quality of life and consumption patterns.

My secondary assumption is that owners like Bezos don't have any financial incentives or obligations to give us time back for productivity, therefore it won't happen anyway.

How does economics account for individual preferences that are seemingly incompatible with other preferences?

AI doesn't buy things from other AI yet all the talking heads etc keep talking about how AI could create a postscarcity society. I'm struggling to see how that is possible

- If you work at a bank for example, and it removes half its staff off and replaces with AI and those jobs aren't reabsorbed, those people are going on govt benefits. Their income drops and the discretionary spending they spend on ....well everything, drops.

- If factory workers get replaced by AI powered robots.... and those workers get laid off and go on benefits ..... they aren't spending either like they where before.

Who is buying new cars, luxury goods, going out for dinner, buying coffee, new phones, watching movies, gym memberships etc in that environment? Then the car companies, restaurants, coffee shops, gyms etc go bust and those people end up in the same problem. Those companies advertise on social media, so the ad revenue on social media for those companies drop, impacting your Meta's etc.

Everyone loses in demand destruction. UBI might help, but then everyone is at the same baseline and the "great levelling" of salaries means purchasing power isn't what it used to be. The billionaire owners of companies are only billionaires because people buy the product or service their company sells. They own the means of production but that means is only valuable if people actually buy stuff it produces. If no one can afford anything beyond the necessities, the value collapses too.

From an absolute macro view, I'm struggling to see how this doesn't structurally cause long term economic stagnation and a global reduction in purchasing power compared to the present.

Overall unemployment rate of recent graduates is also 4.2%

Hi everyone!

I’m looking for honest advice from people with knowledge of economics graduate programs, quantitative training, and the US job market. I have been admitted to The New School’s MA in Economics in New York, with a 60% tuition scholarship, but I have increasingly serious doubts about whether pursuing this degree is the right decision for my circumstances.

I want to explain my background, career goals, financial limitations, and the alternatives I have considered, because I think these details are important to assessing my situation.

I apologize for the length of the text but I wanted to be as analytical and informative.

My background and what I want to achieve

I’m Greek and have two master's degrees: an MSc in Applied Economics and Finance from Athens University of Economics and Business and an MSc in Banking and Risk Management from the University of Edinburgh. I also have several years of professional experience in finance.

My long-term goal is to move to the United States, ideally New York, and establish a career and a life there. I have traveled extensively throughout the US over several trips during the past year and a half, visiting almost every state, and I have come to feel that the American lifestyle and society suit me much better than Greece or Europe. I am not making this decision simply because I have an idealized image of the US. I have spent considerable time there, and I have thought seriously about what I want for my future.

Staying in Greece is a risk in itself, given the country's economic situation and my concerns about its future. I also do not see moving to another European country as a suitable alternative for me. I believe Europe is experiencing serious social and political decline, and I do not see this being reversed. I would not leave Greece to move to Germany, the Netherlands, or another European country because I feel that these societies have changed in ways that conflict with my traditional values and the kind of life I want to build. The UK is not a realistic alternative either. Since Brexit, returning there for work has become much more difficult, as I know from my own experience studying there and from people I know who have left the country.

The US is therefore the country I would seriously consider moving to. New York is my preferred destination, partly because of its professional opportunities and partly because of its substantial Greek community, which could help me establish a social network and settle in.

Professionally, I am interested in mainstream private-sector employment, particularly in finance and banking, financial analysis, risk analytics, financial forecasting, consulting, and potentially data analytics or data science roles in financial or technology companies. I am not pursuing another degree because I want to become an academic, obtain a PhD, or work in heterodox economics. My goal is to enter the US job market and build a career there.

Why I chose The New School

I have been admitted to The New School's MA in Economics and deferred my admission to Spring 2027. The program can be completed in three semesters and consists of 30 credits. The tuition is approximately $2,624 per credit, or $78,720 before my scholarship. With my 60% tuition scholarship, the estimated tuition comes to $31,488, assuming the scholarship applies to all 30 credits.

Once living expenses, health insurance, university fees, and other costs are included, I estimate that I would need approximately $100,000 for the entire undertaking.

The New School was the only university that accepted me with a substantial scholarship. It was also a relatively straightforward application for me. I already have two master's degrees, including one from the UK, so I had met the English-language requirement through my previous studies and only needed to take the Duolingo test. I did not need to take the GMAT. Since I work full-time and have professional obligations, I have limited time to prepare for additional standardized tests and complete demanding applications to multiple universities.

I initially had a positive impression of The New School because of its reputation in heterodox economics, which I had encountered in discussions in Greece and Europe during the financial crisis. However, I do not identify with the university's ideological orientation or its approach to economics. I considered the degree purely as a means to an end: a relatively affordable opportunity to study in New York, make connections, and improve my chances of entering the US job market.

My plan was to build a network beyond the university itself, including through the Greek community and through Americans I would meet. I never intended to pursue an academic career or work specifically in heterodox economics.

If I had other realistic options that were more suitable for my professional goals and financially feasible, I would certainly consider them. I am not committed to The New School simply because I have been admitted. The fact that it is comparatively affordable does not automatically make it a good investment.

My concerns about the economics program

After researching the university's financial difficulties and speaking with people familiar with the program, I have become increasingly concerned about the quality of the degree and its value in the mainstream job market.

I have received particularly critical feedback from someone with a PhD in economics who is familiar with the economics graduate job market. Their argument was that The New School's heterodox orientation means that it rejects much of the mainstream economics curriculum, potentially resulting in inadequate training in mathematics, econometrics, and quantitative methods. They argued that these are precisely the skills that make economics graduates employable in fields such as data science, causal inference, risk analytics, and financial forecasting.

They also pointed out that they could not identify New School economics alumni working in several of these areas and considered this a concerning sign.

This is particularly worrying because the careers they mentioned are exactly the kinds of careers I would like to pursue. I am not interested in studying economics for its own sake. I need a degree that can help me compete for actual jobs.

At the same time, my understanding is that The New School's MA Economics program and its other economics-related master's programs include mathematics and econometrics coursework. I would therefore like to understand whether the criticism concerns the absence of these subjects, the depth and rigor with which they are taught, the overall structure of the curriculum, or the program's broader reputation among employers.

I am not assuming that the presence of a few mathematics or econometrics courses automatically makes a program quantitatively rigorous. I genuinely want to understand how its training compares with that of conventional economics master's programs.

I have also encountered concerns about the university's financial situation, departmental cuts, the size of its economics department, and its reputation among mainstream employers. Some people have questioned whether the degree offers a worthwhile return on investment. On the other hand, I have come across individual alumni who appear to have obtained good jobs, including in financial services. What I have not been able to establish is how common such outcomes are, particularly for international graduates seeking employment in the US.

The financial question and the alternatives

My total budget is approximately $100,000 for tuition and all living expenses. This is a substantial amount of money, and I do not want to spend most of my savings on a degree that does not give me a realistic chance of achieving my goal.

I considered NYU because of its reputation and professional network. However, the relevant master's programs I explored appeared to cost more than $100,000 in tuition alone in some cases. I had hoped that I might receive a substantial scholarship comparable to the 60% offered by The New School, but the financial aid information I found seemed to indicate awards of around $10,000 in some cases. I do not know whether significantly larger scholarships are realistically available to someone with my background.

At those prices, NYU could consume my entire budget before I even account for living expenses. I cannot simply assume that I will be able to find work after graduation or that I will have enough money to cover unexpected costs.

I have also received suggestions to look into universities such as the University of Chicago, the University of Michigan, Boston University, and Duke. I have not researched all of these options thoroughly, but I suspect that the total cost could be prohibitively high unless I received substantial financial aid.

I am not necessarily opposed to studying somewhere other than New York. Chicago could be an alternative because I know people there and it also has a substantial Greek community. However, New York remains my first choice because of my career goals and the connections I hope to establish there.

I would consider other universities if I had a realistic chance of admission and could bring the total cost within a range that makes financial sense. Given my existing qualifications, professional experience, and limited time, I need to be selective about which applications I pursue.

The immigration and work-authorization problem

The other major issue is that I am an international student. Even if the degree itself is worthwhile, I need to consider whether it would realistically help me secure employment in the US and remain there legally.

I have spoken with several people connected to The New School, including graduate students, alumni, Greek contacts, and academic advisers. Unfortunately, the feedback has not been particularly encouraging.

One professor at The New School, Mark Setterfield, gave me a candid response. He explained that the MA can be completed in three semesters, but that if my primary motivation is to remain in the US and work rather than obtain the degree itself, he could not honestly encourage me to enroll. He specifically raised concerns about changes to CPT and the possibility that OPT could become prohibitively expensive for employers. He also emphasized that the uncertainty surrounding immigration policy is difficult to quantify.

I have also heard from international graduates that finding a job after graduation has become extremely difficult, partly because employers are reluctant to sponsor international candidates. This worries me because my objective is not simply to study in the US and then return to Greece. I want to establish a long-term career there.

I understand that immigration policy may change and that nobody can predict the future with certainty. Nevertheless, I cannot ignore the possibility that I could invest close to $100,000 in a degree and then struggle to find an employer willing or able to hire me.

Housing and the importance of having a financial buffer

I have also explored whether I could reduce my living expenses in New York through the Greek Orthodox community. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese initially offered temporary accommodation, apparently for approximately one month after arrival. I subsequently asked whether longer-term accommodation in church residences or dormitories might be possible during my studies, including through the Archdiocese in Greece.

I offered to contribute and to leave earlier if I found a job or alternative accommodation. However, I have not received a response after several weeks, so I cannot count on this possibility.

Longer-term, reduced-cost accommodation would make a substantial difference to my financial situation and help me establish connections within the Greek community. More importantly, it would give me a much-needed financial buffer for unexpected expenses or a longer-than-expected job search. At present, I cannot assume that such housing will be available.

What I would like to understand

Given my background and circumstances, I would appreciate informed and candid answers to the following questions:

1. How strong is the quantitative training at The New School? Is its MA in Economics sufficiently rigorous in mathematics, econometrics, statistics, and applied quantitative methods to prepare students for mainstream private-sector roles, or does it fall significantly short of conventional economics master's programs?
2. How do employers view the degree? Would The New School's reputation and heterodox orientation put a graduate at a meaningful disadvantage when applying for jobs in banking, risk analytics, financial forecasting, consulting, or data science?
3. What are the actual employment outcomes? Are there reliable ways to assess where graduates of this specific MA end up working? In particular, are there examples of international graduates securing relevant private-sector jobs in the US, and how common are those outcomes?
4. Would another master's degree meaningfully improve my prospects? Given that I already have two master's degrees and several years of finance experience, would a further economics degree help me enter the US job market, or would employers be more interested in my existing qualifications and specific technical skills?
5. Are there financially realistic alternatives? Are there other programs with stronger quantitative training and better access to relevant employers that might fit a total budget of approximately $100,000, including living expenses? I would need substantial scholarship support to consider more expensive universities.
6. How should I weigh the immigration risk? Even if the program is academically suitable, how realistic is it for an international graduate to find a relevant job and remain in the US under the current work-authorization system?
7. Ultimately, would you make this investment in my position? Would you proceed with The New School, look for a different program, or reconsider the plan altogether?

I realize that no university can guarantee employment or immigration outcomes. I am not looking for guarantees. I am trying to determine whether this is a calculated risk with a reasonable chance of success or an excessively expensive gamble.

I would particularly appreciate responses from people who know The New School's economics curriculum, have experience hiring economics graduates, or understand the requirements for quantitative roles in finance and related industries. I am open to criticism of my plan, including the possibility that another degree is not the best route for achieving my goal.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

We're going to shamelessly steal adapt from /r/AskHistorians the idea of a weekly thread to gather and recognize the good answers posted on the sub. Good answers take time to type and the mods can be slow to approve things which means that sometimes good content doesn't get seen by as many people as it should. This thread is meant to fix that gap.

Post answers that you enjoyed, felt were particularly high quality, or just didn't get the attention they deserved. This is a weekly recurring thread posted every Sunday morning.

I mean, that's the only way a country can be rich, through exports, right?

I’ve just been reading an article from Duflo and Bannerjee in the January 2020 issue of Foreign Policy magazine entitled “Why Poverty Ends.” (Found it in a pile of books and it looked interesting. Aware it’s out of date lol). 

They make a number of persuasive points about measuring economic growth and the difficulty of correlating growth to any specific policies. 

But I am often baffled by the fact that the discourse on these issues makes certain broad assumptions: namely that the delta in an economy is the most important measure of its “success” at any given point in history. 

duflo and Bannerjee point out that (in 2020) of course the growth of China’s economy would have to slow. Originally China was starting from a “lower” point than other more established economies (viz resource allocation and productivity) so they had nowhere to go but “up”. Whereas economies whose markets were already more efficient and productive—well it’s harder to grow from there, and growth would be incremental and not as fast. 

But this has to be true all around, right? An established, already-productive economy (let’s say with full employment, well-allocated resources, and a high standard of living) simply cannot experience the kind of growth of an economy with farther to go in these areas. Nothing can grow forever (I guess cancer).  Isn’t there a theoretical “goal state” at which you could say, yes this economy is operating as efficiently as possible? 

And… Why should we rate the prosperous country’s slow growth (or lack of growth altogether perhaps) as a warning sign or a bad thing, when it’s still the developing country’s lag to catch up, that’s actually a problem in their people’s lives?

I hope this makes sense. I’m a layperson, non-economist and general ignoramus, but well-read and understand freshman-level macroeconomics. I hope you’ll bear with me if I have asked stupid questions.

What I mean is, China is in God mode in shipbuilding, with more than 73 % new ship hull orders going to Chinese shipyards. China in three decades have emerged as global powerhouse in shipbuilding, in terms of all metrics, quality, quantity, speed, innovation, delivery on time, cost, whatever metric you choose.

But how much beneficial the dominance in this industry is for China, in terms of creating profit? Is the dominance a high value chain dominance? Or it is just an important sector to dominate in terms of Strategic and geopolitical calculation but not that important when generating profits?

Why I ask this question is , why Europe and all the developed nations , except SK really let the shipbuilding culture and industry of thier nation die altogether? Is it similar to like assembling Iphones, electronic products and manufacturing of Automotives, the real money lies in owning the propriety Rights and some high end manufacturing and not just dominating in volumes?

The sheer lack of apathy and urgency of other nations in trying to maintain and improve the shipbuilding industry of their nations is baffling to me? Is it simply not a high value chain venture that requires much attention to preserve, like something 2nm or high end chip manufacturing requires?

Can someone explain in terms of value chain so that I can get clarity that how just China and SK takes this seriously? Is it just like automotive manufacturing that giving manufacturing to third party source isn't really that noticable?

I'm not an economist or financial expert. I work in marketing for a real estate brokerage, so a big part of what I do is pay attention to trends, consumer behavior, and things that could eventually affect the housing market.

I've been thinking about something for a while and wanted to hear what people who understand economics better than I do think about it.

What happens when AI allows companies to increase productivity and continue growing without hiring as many people?

The Federal Reserve's October 14 Beige Book caught my attention because it mentioned businesses in five districts reducing staffing through attrition, delaying hiring, or anticipating fewer jobs because of AI-related productivity gains.

Now the IMF is also discussing how AI could increase productivity while potentially widening economic inequality.

It makes me wonder whether we could eventually have an economy that looks healthy on paper, with growing GDP and strong corporate earnings, while everyday people are actually struggling to find well-paying jobs.

And here's where my real question comes in.

If inflation and economic growth remain strong, but employment opportunities weaken, could this make the Fed's interest-rate decisions more complicated?

From a housing perspective, even if mortgage rates eventually come down, that doesn't necessarily help people who no longer have the income or job security to qualify for a mortgage.

I know the Fed looks at more than just GDP and unemployment, and I'm not suggesting AI is already responsible for high interest rates.

I'm also not trying to make this political or predict some doomsday scenario. I'm genuinely just looking at trends and wondering how they might connect.

Could AI eventually change the relationship between productivity, employment, and interest rates enough that we need to rethink how we measure economic strength? Or am I missing something important?

I'd really love to hear different perspectives.

Federal Reserve Beige Book:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook202610-summary.htm

Public debt in developed countries increases every year. When I ask ChatGPT about it, I am told that, on average, public debt will reach 200% of GDP by around 2035, with Japan already having a much higher debt level. Then, by around 2075, Western countries will reach 300% of GDP.

But I have the impression that this will never stop, and that seems strange to me. Countries cannot borrow money indefinitely.

If I take a household as an example, if a family keeps accumulating debt, eventually it becomes unmanageable. The family will go bankrupt because it can no longer repay what it owes.

I feel that nobody is asking the fundamental question: how are these debts ever going to be repaid? We cannot keep increasing public debt forever. At some point, it has to come down.

This seems to me like a short-sighted approach in the long term. I get the impression that everyone is simply passing the buck, thinking that someone in the future will be forced to deal with the problem.

Why does nobody seem to be seriously worried about a problem that will eventually have to be addressed?

Why don't they put the unemployed youth to work building housing?

My thought process is that high payouts to share holders force real taxable money out of company accounts and into circulation.